MEDIA BRIEF
CONTEMPT OF COURT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST MR ALAN SHADRAKE
-
HEARING ON 18 OCTOBER 2010
1.
In July this year, the Attorney-General obtained leave to commence contempt
proceedings against Mr Alan Shadrake, the author of the book “Once a Jolly
Hangman: Singapore justice in the dock” (“the Book”), for various statements made in
the Book which impugn the impartiality, integrity and independence of the Singapore
Judiciary.
2.
The contempt proceedings were first heard in the High Court before the
Honourable Justice Quentin Loh on 30 July 2010. The hearing was adjourned at the
request of Mr Shadrake’s counsel for Mr Shadrake to file an affidavit to respond to the
case against him.
3.
The case was subsequently heard in open court before Justice Loh on 18 Oct
2010.
General policy underlying contempt proceedings of this nature
4.
The contempt proceedings against Mr. Shadrake are about the preservation of
the Rule of Law. These proceedings have been brought against Mr. Shadrake because
he has engaged in a baseless denigration of the Singapore Judiciary. In a book that is
ostensibly intended to advance the debate on capital punishment in Singapore, Mr
Shadrake has accused the Singapore courts of dispensing unequal justice and deciding
cases according to the instructions of the Singapore Government and/or the wishes of
the ruling political party. Mr Shadrake’s outrageous and offensive allegations about
the Singapore courts strike at the foundation of the Rule of Law in Singapore which is
at the core of our system of Government.
5.
The Rule of Law means that all are subject to the law and equal before the law.
The Judiciary is the vital institution that ensures that the Law is respected and
1
enforced equally. An attack against this vital institution threatens to undermine the
Rule of Law in our country.
6.
This is because respect for and adherence to the Rule of Law rests on public
confidence in the administration of justice by the Courts. Because of the integral role
played by the Courts in maintaining the Rule of Law, public confidence in the
Judiciary cannot and must not be allowed to be shaken by baseless attacks on its
impartiality, integrity or independence. If public confidence in the administration of
justice is allowed to diminish, so too would respect for the Rule of Law in Singapore.
7.
The overriding public interest in protecting the administration of justice in
Singapore requires that the law of contempt be used to punish conduct that impugns
the impartiality, integrity or independence of our courts.
The law
8.
The law provides that a person commits the offence of scandalising the court if
he makes statements which have an inherent tendency to interfere with the
administration of justice. In construing the statements in question, the court applies an
objective test to determine the impression that the statements would convey to an
ordinary reasonable person with knowledge of the relevant circumstances who reads
the statements in their proper context.
The case against Mr Shadrake
9.
Contempt proceedings were commenced against Mr Shadrake as he had made
various baseless and scurrilous statements in his Book that scandalised the Singapore
Judiciary by impugning the impartiality, integrity and independence of the courts in
Singapore. Mr Shadrake further aggravated the contempt by misrepresenting the
decisions of the Singapore courts in his attempt to advance his hypothesis.
10.
In his affidavit, Mr Shadrake claimed that the offending statements in his Book
were not contemptuous as they were not directed at the Singapore Judiciary, and that
it was never his intention to impugn the integrity of the Singapore courts.
11.
The Attorney-General has argued that Mr. Shadrake’s defence was contrived
and false. It is clear from an objective reading of the statements and the context in
which they were made that the statements did refer or extend to the Singapore
Judiciary. In fact, the words in the title of the Book – “Singapore justice in the dock”
and a reference in the Book stating that Mr. Shadrake had unearthed “judicial
scandals” – make it plain that Mr Shadrake’s true intent was to put the entire
Singapore judicial system on trial and to denigrate the Singapore courts.
2
12.
While Article 14 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (“the
Constitution”) protects freedom of speech and expression, this freedom is not
unfettered. The Constitution itself recognises that the right to freedom of speech and
expression is subject to laws against contempt of court. The constitutionality of the
law of contempt as a justifiable restriction on freedom of speech has been upheld in
Singapore and other jurisdictions because contempt laws serve the overriding public
interest in protecting the administration of justice.
13.
This case is not about fair criticism of the judgments and decisions of the court.
The law recognises that statements that constitute fair criticism are not contemptuous.
However, to constitute fair criticism, the statements must be fair, temperate, made in
good faith and not directed at the integrity or impartiality of the courts. The AttorneyGeneral has submitted to the Court that Mr Shadrake’s baseless and unwarranted
attacks on the integrity, impartiality and independence of the Singapore Judiciary
cannot possibly come within any reasonable notion of fair criticism.
14.
The Attorney-General has further submitted that Mr Shadrake’s offensive and
scandalous statements about the Singapore Judiciary are neither fair nor respectful as
he has claimed but are plainly and grossly in contempt of court. The fact that Mr
Shadrake disagrees with Singapore’s laws and policies on drug offences and capital
punishment does not give him any licence to undermine one of the key institutions
charged with the responsibility to uphold the Rule of Law in Singapore. This is an
especially pernicious case of grave and aggravated contempt as Mr Shadrake’s
broadside attack is directed against our entire judicial system.
15.
The hearing continues on 19 October 2010.
For further queries, please contact:
Li Jin Haw (Ms)
Assistant Director, Corporate Communications Unit,
Attorney-General's Chambers, Singapore
DID: 6332 4693 ▪ Email: li_jin_haw@agc.gov.sg
3